{"id":157591,"date":"2009-11-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/randhir-vs-manohar-and-another-on-26-november-2009"},"modified":"2018-03-09T22:04:51","modified_gmt":"2018-03-09T16:34:51","slug":"randhir-vs-manohar-and-another-on-26-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/randhir-vs-manohar-and-another-on-26-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"Randhir vs Manohar And Another on 26 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Randhir vs Manohar And Another on 26 November, 2009<\/div>\n
          R.S.A.No. 2022 of 2009                              1\n\n\n\n      In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh\n\n\n                                   Date of decision: 26.11. 2009\n\n                                   R.S.A.No. 2022 of 2009\n\n\nRandhir\n                                                       ......Appellant\n                         Versus\n\n\nManohar and another\n                                                     .......Respondents\n\n\n                                   R.S.A.No. 2027 of 2009 (O&M)\n\n\nVirender\n                                                       ......Appellant\n                         Versus\n\n\nManohar and others\n                                                     .......Respondents\n\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA\n\n\nPresent:    Mr. R.A.Sheoran, Advocate,\n            for the appellant (s).\n\n                  ****\n\nSABINA, J.\n<\/pre>\n
            Vide this judgment RSA Nos. 2020 and 2027 of 2009 will<\/p>\n
be disposed of as the point in issue in both the cases is similar.<\/p>\n
            Randhir Singh had filed a suit for declaration with<\/p>\n
consequential relief of possession claiming that the said property had
\n           R.S.A.No. 2022 of 2009                             2<\/span><\/p>\n
been inherited by his father Indraj and hence, the same could not be<\/p>\n
sold by him without legal necessity. Manohar, on the other hand,<\/p>\n
had filed a suit for permanent injunction that Indraj, Surender,<\/p>\n
Virender, Randhir and Narender be restrained from interfering in his<\/p>\n
peaceful possession as he had purchased the suit land from Indraj.<\/p>\n
             The facts of the case, as noticed by the learned<\/p>\n
Additional District Judge, in the appeal filed by Randhir read as<\/p>\n
under:-\n<\/p>\n
             “2.        The plaintiff has filed the present suit for<\/p>\n
             declaration with consequential relief of possession<\/p>\n
             against the defendants, inter-alia on the ground that suit<\/p>\n
             land measuring 25 kanals 8 marlas, as detailed in para<\/p>\n
             No.1 of the plaint, situated within the area of Village<\/p>\n
             Charkhi Tehsil Charkhi-Dadri, District Bhiwani was<\/p>\n
             inherited by defendant no.2 Indraj vendor, the father of<\/p>\n
             the plaintiff, from his adoptive father Shri Ram.     The<\/p>\n
             plaintiff has shown the relationship in the pedigree table<\/p>\n
             described in para no.1 of the trial court judgment. It is<\/p>\n
             further alleged that the suit property was the coparcenary<\/p>\n
             property and joint Hindu family property of him and<\/p>\n
             defendant No.2 and his other brothers. The defendant<\/p>\n
             no.2 has sold the suit land without any legal necessity<\/p>\n
             because he was drunkard and the sale deed No.2614<\/p>\n
             dated 22.3.1984 is without consideration and it is an act
\n R.S.A.No. 2022 of 2009                                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
   of fraud. Therefore, the same is not binding on the rights<\/p>\n
   of the plaintiff and his brothers. Hence, this suit.<\/p>\n
   3.    On notice of the suit, defendants appeared in the<\/p>\n
   Court.   In his written statement, defendant no.1 has<\/p>\n
   alleged the preliminary objections qua maintainability of<\/p>\n
   the suit; cause of action; bad for non-joinder of necessary<\/p>\n
   parties etc. On merits, it is alleged that the suit property<\/p>\n
   being the coparcenary property is vehemently denied. It<\/p>\n
   is pleaded that the suit land was sold for a consideration<\/p>\n
   of Rs.30,000\/- and, therefore, the defendant no.1 became<\/p>\n
   the owner in possession of the suit property vide<\/p>\n
   aforesaid sale deed.     Vendor defendant no.2 was the<\/p>\n
   absolute owner of the said land, therefore, he had every<\/p>\n
   right to sell the same. It is pleaded that the defendant<\/p>\n
   no.2, in fact, was under heavy debt because in the year<\/p>\n
   1977, he had taken loan of Rs.24,000\/- by way of<\/p>\n
   mortgaging his land from P.A.R.D.B. Dadri, to run his<\/p>\n
   dairy business.    The said loan was obtained from the<\/p>\n
   welfare of the family.     So, to pay off the said loan,<\/p>\n
   defendant No.2 contacted with the answering defendant<\/p>\n
   to sell his land and at the time of agreement to sell his<\/p>\n
   land, he received Rs.2000\/- as earnest money and<\/p>\n
   remaining amount of Rs.28,000\/- was to be paid on<\/p>\n
   31.3.1984.    But the sale deed was executed by the
\n         R.S.A.No. 2022 of 2009                                  4<\/span><\/p>\n
            defendant No.2 on 22.3.1984 after receiving Rs.28,000\/-<\/p>\n
            as cash and on the same date, Indraj vendor deposited<\/p>\n
            Rs.29,595\/- in cash in his loan account and settled the<\/p>\n
            same. Prayer for dismissal of the suit has been made.”<\/p>\n
            On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were<\/p>\n
framed by the trial court:\n<\/p>\n
            1. Whether Indraj defendant and his sons form a joint<\/p>\n
            H.U.F. ?OPP.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            2. If issue no.1 is proved, whether the land in dispute is a<\/p>\n
            joint HUF property?OPP.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            3. Whether the defendant no.1 is the bona fide purchaser<\/p>\n
            for valuable consideration?OPD.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            4. Whether the sale in dispute is an act of good<\/p>\n
            management of defendant No.2?OPD.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            5. Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the<\/p>\n
            present suit?OPD.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            6. Whether the present suit is not maintainable in its<\/p>\n
            present form?OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            7. Whether the present suit is bad for non-joinder of<\/p>\n
            necessary parties?OPD.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            8.      Whether the present suit is bad for non-compliance<\/p>\n
                 of Order 7(1)J?OPD.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            9.      Whether       the   present   suit   is   false   and\n\n                 frivolous?OPD.\n         R.S.A.No. 2022 of 2009                               5<\/span>\n\n           10.     Relief.\"\n\n<\/pre>\n
           Vide order dated 23.7.2003, the onus of issue No.2 was<\/p>\n
shifted upon the plaintiff and the issue No.4 was re-framed, which<\/p>\n
reads as under:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           “4.     Whether the sale in dispute is an act of good<\/p>\n
           management on the part of defendant No.2 as he had<\/p>\n
           legal necessity to sell the suit land in favour of defendant<\/p>\n
           No.1? OPD<\/p>\n
           The suit filed by Randhir Singh was dismissed by both the<\/p>\n
Courts below, whereas, the suit filed by Manohar was decreed by<\/p>\n
both the Courts below<\/p>\n
           After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I am of<\/p>\n
the opinion that these appeals are devoid of any merit and deserve to<\/p>\n
be dismissed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
           The Courts below have held that the suit property was<\/p>\n
ancestral property in the hands of Indraj.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           The question that requires consideration in these appeals<\/p>\n
is as to whether the land owned by Indraj had been sold for legal<\/p>\n
necessity. Both the Courts below, after perusing the agreement to<\/p>\n
sell Ex.D-1 and sale deed dated 22.3.1984 EX.D-2, held that it was<\/p>\n
clearly established that loan had been taken by Indraj from the bank.<\/p>\n
As per Ex.DW2-A, Rs. 29,595\/- had been deposited by Indraj with<\/p>\n
the bank on 22.3.1984. Ex.DW-2\/B was the attested copy of the<\/p>\n
ledger. The said loan had been taken by Indraj in the year 1977-78
\n         R.S.A.No. 2022 of 2009                              6<\/span><\/p>\n
for dairy purposes. Since Indraj was a chronic defaulter, he sold the<\/p>\n
land in dispute to clear the outstanding loan. In these circumstances,<\/p>\n
the Courts below held that it could not be said that Indraj had sold<\/p>\n
the suit property without any legal necessity. The Courts further held<\/p>\n
that there was nothing to establish on record that Indraj was a liquor<\/p>\n
addict or that no consideration had passed between the parties at the<\/p>\n
time of execution of the sale deed by Indraj in favour of Manohar. In<\/p>\n
these circumstances, the suit filed by Randhir for declaration and<\/p>\n
possession was rightly dismissed by the Courts below.           Since<\/p>\n
Manohar had become owner of the suit land on the basis of the sale<\/p>\n
deed executed by Indraj in his favour, the decree for permanent<\/p>\n
injunction was rightly passed restraining Indraj, Surender, Virender,<\/p>\n
Randhir and Narender from interfering in the peaceful possession of<\/p>\n
Manohar.\n<\/p>\n
           No substantial question of law arises in these regular<\/p>\n
second appeals. Accordingly, the same are dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                              (SABINA)
\n                                               JUDGE
\nNovember 26, 2009
\nanita\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Randhir vs Manohar And Another on 26 November, 2009 R.S.A.No. 2022 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 26.11. 2009 R.S.A.No. 2022 of 2009 Randhir ……Appellant Versus Manohar and another …….Respondents R.S.A.No. 2027 of 2009 (O&M) Virender ……Appellant Versus Manohar and others …….Respondents […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-157591","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRandhir vs Manohar And Another on 26 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/randhir-vs-manohar-and-another-on-26-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Randhir vs Manohar And Another on 26 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/randhir-vs-manohar-and-another-on-26-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-09T16:34:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/randhir-vs-manohar-and-another-on-26-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/randhir-vs-manohar-and-another-on-26-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Randhir vs Manohar And Another on 26 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-09T16:34:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/randhir-vs-manohar-and-another-on-26-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1077,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/randhir-vs-manohar-and-another-on-26-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/randhir-vs-manohar-and-another-on-26-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/randhir-vs-manohar-and-another-on-26-november-2009\",\"name\":\"Randhir vs Manohar And Another on 26 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-09T16:34:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/randhir-vs-manohar-and-another-on-26-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/randhir-vs-manohar-and-another-on-26-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/randhir-vs-manohar-and-another-on-26-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Randhir vs Manohar And Another on 26 November, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Randhir vs Manohar And Another on 26 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/randhir-vs-manohar-and-another-on-26-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Randhir vs Manohar And Another on 26 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/randhir-vs-manohar-and-another-on-26-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-09T16:34:51+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/randhir-vs-manohar-and-another-on-26-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/randhir-vs-manohar-and-another-on-26-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Randhir vs Manohar And Another on 26 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-09T16:34:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/randhir-vs-manohar-and-another-on-26-november-2009"},"wordCount":1077,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/randhir-vs-manohar-and-another-on-26-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/randhir-vs-manohar-and-another-on-26-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/randhir-vs-manohar-and-another-on-26-november-2009","name":"Randhir vs Manohar And Another on 26 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-09T16:34:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/randhir-vs-manohar-and-another-on-26-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/randhir-vs-manohar-and-another-on-26-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/randhir-vs-manohar-and-another-on-26-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Randhir vs Manohar And Another on 26 November, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/157591","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=157591"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/157591\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=157591"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=157591"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=157591"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}